This is a record of my journey as a Muslim. I used to be Catholic and belonged to a missionary organisation. After my conversion, I sat on the board of a Muslim converts' organisation and specialised in da'wah programmes, convert management, interfaith issues and apostasy cases. I am an initiate of a Sufi order. As such, the articles and writings tend to cover these areas.
All the Arabic and graphics could not have been done without the help of my wife, Zafirah.

Thursday, 18 May 2017

The Diversity of Thought in Islam

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ
ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Muslims might not realise it, but in the
early days of Islam, until about 500 years or so ago, our intellectual
environment was one of the most vibrant. There were hundreds of schools of thought in
jurisprudence, of which Sunni Islam had more than 20. There was an emphasis on enquiry and learning,
as opposed to simply memorising and repeating.

The Maliki madzhab was known for
its grounding in the ‘urf, the culture of Madina; the Hanafi madzhab
was famous for its scepticism of ahadits and emphasis on reasoning and
speculative fiqh; the Shafi’i madzhab was known for its rigorous
methodology; and the Hanbali madzhab was known for its conservative
approach towards the mutashabihat, verses that could not be understood
literally. Besides these four, there
were the major schools that have since become extinct such as the madzahib of
Imam Layts ibn Sa’ad (r.a.), Imam Sufyan ats-Tsawri (r.a.), Imam
ibn Hazm (r.a.), Imam ibn Jarir ath-Thabari (r.a.) and so many
more.

Imam al-Maturidi (r.a.) dismissed
many ahadits that were incorporated in Swahih al-Bukhari, without
examining the text and chain; if a hadits was hyperbole and contradicted
reason, he discounted it. Imam al-Ash’ari
(r.a.) believed in female prophets. Imam Abu Hanifah (r.a.) did not
consider the hijab to be a strict requirement. Imam ibn Hazm (r.a.) questioned the
need to make up missed prayers. Shaykh
ibn ‘Arabi (q.s.) did not believe Salvation was exclusive to Muslims. Imam ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) believed that
most of the Ahl al-Kitab are extinct.

Our great scholars were people. In some cases, they liked each other; in
others, they hated and cursed each other. Some groups persecuted others - sometimes to
extinction. They made mutual takfir.
They advanced contradictory positions. They burned books and banned works. They were people, not angels.

Now, if someone adheres to a position
that the Shafi’i cartel does not, or the Barelvis do not, or adheres to a
position that is not widely known, even when it was held by a scholar of Islam,
that person is “astray”? Is this what
Islam has come to? The truth is, these
were all accepted positions in Islam, even Sunni Islam, at one time. Who gave any of them the right to decide who
is or is not accepted on such flimsy reasoning? Suddenly, in this age, to question anything,
or to avail oneself to a position that is not “popular” is grounds for kufr.
For example, this issue with “The Study
Qur'an”. I am looking at people like
Gibril Haddad and Ibrahim Osi-Efa, who have both made implicit takfir of
the scholars involved and discredited their credentials. Some people do not like the narrative
challenged; it diminishes their authority as the gatekeepers of knowledge.

I am not saying that we reject scholars.
But we should not be slaves to their
opinions and prejudices. And not every
person who is called a “shaykh”, or an “ustadz”, or whatever
fancy term they use, is necessarily a scholar, and not every scholar is
necessarily correct.